Trust and collaboration in interorganizational information technology projects in the public sector.
| Autor | Luna-Reyes, Luis Felipe |
| Cargo | Artículo en inglés |
La confianza y la colaboración en proyectos interorganizacionales de tecnologías de información en el sector público
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to describe a feedback-based collaboration theory that contributes to our understanding of the interplay between trust development and collaboration in interorganizational projects in the public sector. The paper extends previous theory development about trust dynamics, further exploring how trust, understanding and engagement evolve dynamically in the context of interorganizational information technology innovations in the public sector (Black, Carlile, and Repenning, 2004; Luna-Reyes et al., 2008).
The importance of collaboration among government agencies and other partners such as private organizations and non-profits has been captured by several literatures such as collaborative public management, multi-partner governance, joined-up government or network government (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh, 2012). Collaborative approaches to solving problems and pushing common visions forward have been promoted in government for many reasons. They increase commitment toward group decisions (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Gray, 1989; McCaffrey, Faerman, and Hart, 1995), sharing resources and reducing costs (Bardach, 1998, 2001; Twitchell et al., 2007), and tackling complex problems to improve program effectiveness (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone, 2006; Dawes, Cresswell and Pardo, 2009; Page, 2003; Vangen and Huxham, 2011). However, we still lack a clear understanding of how collaboration works and how to promote successful collaborations (Bardach, 2001; Dawes, Cresswell and Pardo, 2009; Rethemeyer, 2009; Vangen and Huxham, 2011). There is a need to develop better theories of collaboration not only to improve our understanding of the process, but also to guide practice (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Bardach, 2001; Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh, 2012).
Developing meaningful theories of collaboration requires exploration of the complex dynamics of the factors intertwined in the process, involving multiple, recursive, interacting sub-processes (Bardach, 2001). Common themes emerging in the literature include communication, trust, engagement and knowledge sharing, which are frequently embedded in paragraphs describing a series of reinforcing and dynamic processes (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Black et al., 2004). The present paper extends and explores these relations between trust and the engagement of participants in doing work in a project across organizational boundaries. The research is guided by two specific research questions: what are the main mechanisms of trust development in interorganizational collaborations involving information technology innovations in the public sector, and what are their impacts in the collaboration process and results? Computer simulation is used as the research method because of its advantages as a theory-development and practice tool (Bardach, 2001; Hanneman, 1995; Kopainsky and Luna-Reyes, 2008).
The paper is structured in seven sections including this introduction. The next section includes a brief review of the relevant literature on collaboration. The third section is a description of the methods used to build the model presented in the paper. Section four contains a description of the data used to build the model--a description of the Homeless Information Management System (HIMS) project. The fifth section describes the model structure, which is consistent with the hims data and the literature. Section six includes some simulation experiments associated with the feedback processes embedded in the model. Finally, the paper finishes with a brief summary and some implications of the simulation experiments for both theory and practice.
The theory presented in this paper builds on the literature on trust and collaboration. In this section of the paper, we start with a review of this literature, and finish with a meso-theory that can be obtained from the literature.
Trust and collaboration
Collaboration can be defined as the process in which two or more parties create a shared vision of a problem or solution on the basis of their particular perceptions of the problem (Dawes et al, 2009; Gray, 1989). In this context, trust becomes an important element not only to bring the different parties into a conversation, but also to facilitate the disclosure and effective transfer of individual views (Levin, et al, 2002; Levin, Cross, and Abrams, 2002a, 2002b; Shapiro, Sheppard, and Cheraskin, 1992; Vangen and Huxham, 2011).
Trust has been recognized as an important factor for collaborative relations and in organizational networks (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Bryson et al., 2006; Milward et al., 2010; Vangen & Huxham, 2003). Vangen and Huxham (2003) stressed the importance of trust as a "continuous process of nurturing" the collaborative relationship through a reinforcing process. In their reflection on this process, they consider as two key elements to initiate the trust-building cycle "the ability to form expectations about the future outcomes of the collaboration and the willingness to take a risk" (Vangen and Huxham, 2003, 16).
Unfortunately, wide agreement on the importance of trust does not lead to similar agreement on the various forms, meanings, or causes of trust (Rousseau et al., 1998; Sheppard and Sherman, 1998). There are, however, some important consistent themes and general understandings of the nature and dynamics of trust (Rousseau et al., 1998). Researchers in the area have identified several mechanisms of "trust production": institutional trust, calculative trust, knowledge-based trust, and identification-based trust.
Institutional trust refers to the existence of an institutional framework that regulates the relationship between the trustor and the trustee. This institutional framework can consist of laws, regulations or certification bodies that provide penalties for a party cheating in the interaction, or provide certification of the trustworthiness of the trustee. In any case, the existence of this mechanism to facilitate trust reduces the trustor's perception of risk in the interaction. Calculative trust refers to the trustee's estimation of the risks and pay-offs intertwined in the interaction. Changes in the perception of the institutional framework can result in changed perception of risk, promoting increases in calculative trust. Knowledge-based trust is related to the ability of the trustor to assess the trustworthiness of the trustee. This assessment of trustworthiness can be based on the recognition of expertise, benevolence, ability, and integrity, and it is associated with the history or the process of the relationship (Levin, Cross, and Abrams, 2002b; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995). Finally, identification-based trust is sometimes associated with emotional bonds, or with the existence of shared values or objectives between the actors.
Consistent with the conceptualization of Rousseau et al. (1998), Luna-Reyes et al. (2004) developed a theory integrating three of these modes of trust production (see figure 1). In this model, Trust in B (the trustee) is the result of a weighted average between the calculative and the knowledge-based components of trust. Given that As (the trustor) knowledge of B works as the weighting factor, calculative trust plays a more important role in early stages of the relationship. This situation changes toward a knowledge-based trust as the relationships matures, and the parties involved develop a history of interactions and get to know each other. The knowledge-based component of trust is the proportion of good experiences in the relationship remembered by the trustor.
As it is shown in the figure, this perception can be biased from previous experiences and other random events. Consistent with the literature, calculative trust is considered as the ratio of perceived benefit to perceived risk. Also consistent with the literature, institutional trust works to reduce the perception of risk in the interaction. Finally, the trustee also gets to know the trustor when she discloses information in the relationship, and as a result of this knowledge he learns about her needs and concerns, developing the ability to build his own trustworthiness in a more effective way.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Toward a theory of collaboration
The literature includes many examples and specific cases of successful collaboration, but still lacks a generic model describing the way in which collaboration processes may work (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012). Some efforts to develop such a theory have been made, and it is possible to find recurrent themes in the collaboration literature in public administration, as well as in other related literatures in management and information systems. This section of the paper includes what could be thought of as a generic theory of collaboration across boundaries (see figure 2).
As it is shown in figure 2, collaboration is frequently triggered by a problem that requires actions involving multiple stakeholders. The need of collective action comes from different sources: the complexity of the problem (Bryson et al, 2006; Dawes, et al., 2009; Vangen and Huxham, 2011), an opportunity or a need to use resources in a more effective way (Bardach, 2001; Twitchell et al., 2007), the opportunity to innovate in the provision of services (Page, 2003), or when the problem or task crosses expertise and organizational boundaries (Black et al, 2004; Daley, 2009; Luna-Reyes et al., 2008). An initial problem is that of creating an appropriate network of organizations to work on the project--not an easy task (Milward et al., 2010). Moreover, an initial level of trust is needed for the invited organizations to join the effort--a need for an initial willingness to take a risk working together (Vangen and Huxham, 2003). This initial trust can come from institutional, calculative or knowledge-based sources...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu pruebaCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
